Some people say yes.
Others think the award was a joke and has cheapened the prestige of the prize.
The answer is obvious.
I am not a political supporter of President Obama but facts are facts: the President was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
As such, whatever President Obama has achieved to date was sufficient to win the prize.
If you don’t agree your assumptions about what it takes to win the Nobel Peace Prize are wrong.
Why?
Because the man won the prize.
If your assumptions about what one has to do to win the Nobel Peace Prize were correct he would not have won.
He won.
Your assumptions are therefore incorrect.
Facts determine theories; not the other way around.
The same argument applies to those who ask, has President Obama really done enough to be President of the United States?
Again, I am not a political supporter of President Obama but I grow impatient with people who ask this question.
Fact: Barack H. Obama is the President of the United States.
It is patent he has done enough to become President.
If you don’t think he’s done enough your theory about what someone has to do to become President of the United States is wrong.
Why?
Because if your theory was correct he would not be the President of the United States.
He is.
Therefore your theory is incorrect.
This is not to say there should not be standards for winning the Nobel Peace Prize or becoming President of the United States.
We can even have debates about what those standards should be.
But if reality isn’t conforming to your idea of what those standards are don’t blame reality: change your theory.
